Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

[Ron Mars]

Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi

Appeal to be made as G8 foreign ministers consider whether to back French and British calls for a no-fly zone over Libya

Mustafa Gheriani, spokesman for the revolutionary national council in its stronghold of Benghazi, said the appeal was to be made by a delegation meeting the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in Paris on Monday, as G8 foreign ministers gathered there to consider whether to back French and British calls for a no-fly zone over Libya.

"We are telling the west we want a no-fly zone, we want tactical strikes against those tanks and rockets that are being used against us and we want a strike against Gaddafi's compound," said Gheriani. "This is the message from our delegation in Europe."

But with diplomatic wrangling focused on the issue of the no-fly zone, there appeared to be little immediate prospect of a foreign military assault on Gaddafi's forces, let alone an air strike against the Libyan dictator.

But the rebels' appeal is also a recognition that while a no-fly zone would provide a boost to them, their military defeats of recent days have largely been under an onslaught of rockets and shells, and air strikes have been relatively peripheral.

A no-fly zone alone may not be enough to prevent the continued advance of Gaddafi's forces toward Benghazi, the revolutionaries' de facto capital.

The talks are being closely watched in Benghazi and other areas under the control of the revolutionaries where Libyans are increasingly concerned at the direction of the conflict and the west's failure, so far at least, to follow through on calls for Gaddafi to go with action in support of the rebellion.

A large French flag hangs on the front of the courthouse used as the revolutionary council's headquarters after Paris recognised the rebel leadership, and the tricolour is often seen on the streets of Benghazi. But Libyans are also increasingly vocal in their criticism of Washington in particular for what is seen as a failure to back up rhetoric against the regime.

However, Gheriani said that if the west failed to offer practical help to the revolutionaries to free themselves from Gaddafi's rule it risked frustrated Libyans turning to religious extremists.

"The west is missing the point. The revolution was started because people were feeling despair from poverty, from oppression. Their last hope was freedom. If the west takes too long – where people say it's too little, too late – then people become a target for extremists who say the west doesn't care about them," he said.

"Most people in this country are moderates and extremists have not been able to penetrate them. But if they get to the point of disillusionment with the west there will be no going back."
Libyan rebels urge west to assassinate Gaddafi as his forces near Benghazi | World news | The Guardian


Libyans have the courage to fight for themselves. The free world should have the courage to support them.

 

[DiAnna]

My heart says "yes, yes, yes", my head says "no, no, no"... unless NATO or the ARAB states are willing go fuel up their air forces tomorrow, and leap into the fray. They, however, are not.

By the end of this week there will not be a single anti-Gadaffi civilian alive, because the world has spent three weeks wringing its hands... just like it always does.

 

[Ron Mars]

My heart says "yes, yes, yes", my head says "no, no, no"... unless NATO or the ARAB states are willing go fuel up their air forces tomorrow, and leap into the fray. They, however, are not.

By the end of this week there will not be a single anti-Gadaffi civilian alive, because the world has spent three weeks wringing its hands... just like it always does.

The free world has moved with speed and purpose to defend people fighting for their very lives in the past.

In a few days a pair of US carriers could easily destroy Gaddaif's air defense and air force. His ground units are moving through open desert and would be easy targets. Especially at night. I'd love to see Gaddafi's butchers running for their lives for a change.

 

[DiAnna]

We dare not do it alone, and the international community will never commit itself in time to save the rebels. Don't forget, the international community watched Serbia commit genocide for five freaking years, and did nothing. You think it will act overnight now? I'm sorry. It won't happen.

 

[Ron Mars]

We dare not do it alone, and the international community will never commit itself in time to save the rebels. Don't forget, the international community watched Serbia commit genocide for five freaking years, and did nothing. You think it will act overnight now? I'm sorry. It won't happen.

Yeah, unfortunately I think you are right. The UN is hopeless to do anything meaningful.

A NFZ over Libya won't stop Gaddafi from attacking Benghazi. The US should hit Gaddafi's military forces, alone if necessary.

 

[Councilman]

If it could be done on the QT I'd say go for it take the bastards out. But since there is little chance of that, we need to support the Rebels we arms and supplies and get the Arab league to take the lead.

 

[Jetboogieman]

It is over.

Gaddafi will win.

The west has failed.

 

[apdst]

It is over.

Gaddafi will win.

The west has failed.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh, now the West has failed?!? :lamo

 

[American]

It is over.

Gaddafi will win.

The west has failed.

Which part of the West has failed?

 

[apdst]

Which part of the West has failed?

If someone had intervened, the West still would have failed. :rofl

 

[Ron Mars]

If it could be done on the QT I'd say go for it take the bastards out. But since there is little chance of that, we need to support the Rebels we arms and supplies and get the Arab league to take the lead.

The Arab League is not going to stop Gaddafi. Neither will the UN.

The only thing that will put an end to his slaughtering is to destroy his military and send a missile up his a**.

 

[Ron Mars]

It is over.

Gaddafi will win.

The west has failed.

That may turn out to be correct due to the spineless wimps leading the West right now.

The Libyan's are wondering where the leader of the free world is. They are not alone.

 

[Marshabar]

My heart says "yes, yes, yes", my head says "no, no, no"... unless NATO or the ARAB states are willing go fuel up their air forces tomorrow, and leap into the fray. They, however, are not.

By the end of this week there will not be a single anti-Gadaffi civilian alive, because the world has spent three weeks wringing its hands... just like it always does.

We've got to stop.

These people curse us but expect our sons and daughters will die for them.

I met a Christian Iraqi woman this weekend whose family came to the United States in 1993. She went back to Iraq to work as a linguist for the military during Bush's tenure. She was horrified at the number of Iraqi Muslims who are receiving Visas. She'd hear them bragging about their Visas and laughing at Americans. Her family has been chased from country to country over the generations, murdered and robbed time after time by Muslims. She said she doesn't know where in the world a Christian could go to be safe if the United States allows them to flood in as Europe has done.

 

[donsutherland1]

A number of thoughts:

1. The revolution will need to be waged by Libyans.

2. U.S. interests are not sufficiently critical to warrant direct military intervention. Arms assistance or perhaps participation in a no fly zone might could be constructive. However, strategic bombing, assaination, or other direct military intervention should not be pursued. The U.S. should follow a policy consistent with its interests. It should not repeat blunders that resulted from non-interest connected military intervention e.g., in Somalia in the early 1990s.

3. The Arab states have sufficient interests at stake to intervene militarily. That the Arab League has made a hollow gesture, agreeing to a no fly zone but choosing not to use any of its air assets to enforce its declaration, speaks volumes. In contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a subset of Arab League members, committed military units to aid Bahrain's government. That the Arab League won't run any risks in Libya when they have larger interests in the outcome than the U.S./most NATO members should provide pause to states that have far fewer interests at stake e.g., the U.S.

4. Unpopular as it might be to suggest it, recent events have suggested that the anti-Gadhafi revolution does not enjoy broad-based support. Previously, I had assumed that the uprising was a broad-based popular one. It is not. The dictator commands a significant amount of support and the magnitude of that support is sufficiently great that it almost certainly cannot completely be explained by fear/coercion/disinformation.

5. Even more unpopular to suggest, the lack of broad-based support for the anti-Gadhafi revolution may well be a more important factor than the dictatorship's use of air power in determining the outcome of the conflict. In other words, had the revolution truly enjoyed broad-based popular support, military defections, including among its air force, would have been sufficiently large to bring those units and assets against the dictatorship. Then, the balance of power would have meant that the dictatorship was doomed. That didn't happen.

6. The lack of broad-based popular support means that the risk of violence that would arise in the power vacuum that would follow the collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship would be especially high. There would be competition, very likely violent, as various factions exploit the power vacuum and compete for influence/control.

7. To date, the opposition has demonstrated surprisingly poor organizational and military skill, even as some fighters e.g., in Zawiya, have demonstrated heroic courage. To date, not a single senior opposition leader has even spoken before the UN Security Council when, in theory, that forum would give them the largest global audience to make their case. Furthermore, there has been ample time during which such an address should have been given. That major oversight says much about the opposition's leadership capabilities. Given that situation and the lack of broad-based popular support, there would be a real danger that the opposition would not be able to form a broadly-supported transitional government in time to avert the consequences of the power vacuum that would result from the dictator's fall.

In sum, while I hope that the Gadhafi regime is toppled, I strongly believe that the outcome should be driven by the Libyans. Given the lack of critical U.S. interests at stake, I do not believe the U.S. should engage in direct military intervention. Moreover, the Arab League's hollow no fly zone declaration, makes the argument even stronger that the U.S. should not shoulder the risks and sacrifices that the Arab League refuses to bear to support its much greater interests.

 

[Ron Mars]

In sum, while I hope that the Gadhafi regime is toppled, I strongly believe that the outcome should be driven by the Libyans. Given the lack of critical U.S. interests at stake, I do not believe the U.S. should engage in direct military intervention. Moreover, the Arab League's hollow no fly zone declaration, makes the argument even stronger that the U.S. should not shoulder the risks and sacrifices that the Arab League refuses to bear to support its much greater interests.

1.) The revolution is being waged by Libyans. They’re losing right now and asking for help. If nobody helps them they will lose.

2.) To support people fighting for their freedom is in the national interest of the US as it should be for all free nations. We do not need to send in large ground units if any at all. Air strikes can defeat Gaddafi's military campaign and chase his butt around the desert for awhile. If we don’t kill him he’ll leave.

3.) The Arab states would have acted by now if they had any intention of intervening militarily. And it's obvious now that it will require a military intervention.

4.) It's my understanding that the lack of civilian support for the rebellion, for obvious reasons, is in the areas where Gaddafi still holds control. The civilians in the rebel held areas appear to be quite supportive. But I'd agree it's too early to tell on this one.

5.) Many of Gaddafi's military units have either refused to fire on civilians or joined the rebels.
Libyan Opposition Leader: Military Siding with People

6.) It would be nice to have some adult leadership in the US and UN right now. This is exactly what the UN was designed to mediate. They have near zero credibility right now.

7.) Of course the rebellion is not organized like regular military forces. They are civilians and ex-military. You and I seem to have a different understanding of “heroic courage”.

 

[donsutherland1]

1.) The revolution is being waged by Libyans.

IMO, it will have to be waged and won by Libyans. As noted previously, I do favor arms deliveries to the revolutionaries and could support a no fly zone. I do not support direct military intervention.

2.) To support people fighting for their freedom is in the national interest of the US as it should be for all free nations.

Lending support via the steps I noted above is providing concrete support. I don't think the U.S. can or should be obligated to wage military campaigns on behalf of any or all peoples who might seek to topple authoritarian regimes. Even if interests were not relevant, the U.S. lacks the manpower and resources to do so on such a scale. Much more needs to be involved to trigger such direct military support.

3.) The Arab states would have acted by now if they had any intention of intervening militarily. And it's obvious now that it will require a military intervention.

Apparently, aside from expressing moral support, the Arab League does not believe the situation warrants their military intervention, even as they possess military capabilities that are superior to those of Gadhafi's forces. Whether a revolution requires military support to succeed is a separate matter from whether others should intervene. No revolution is automatically entitled to such support and, given what now appears to be less than broad-based popular support within Libya and the risks associated with such a situation, I believe the U.S. should be even more careful about whether it wishes to intervene militarily.

4.) It's my understanding that the lack of civilian support for the rebellion, for obvious reasons, is in the areas where Gaddafi still holds control. The civilians in the rebel held areas appear to be quite supportive. But I'd agree it's too early to tell on this one.

What you're describing is exactly what now appears to be a more narrowly-supported revolution, almost but not quite an East-West schism. The East, with few exceptions, has risen up against the dictatorship. On only a very limited basis, did people in the West rise up. That situation has allowed Gadhafi's forces to shift toward the battlefront in the East. Yet, even in areas in which their number has fallen, one is not witnessing a surge of anti-Gadhafi activity. IMO, that development and the lack of massive defections by the military suggest that the Gadhafi dictatorship enjoys a measure of fairly meaningful popular support that cannot fully be explained by its repression.

5.) Many of Gaddafi's military units have either refused to fire on civilians or joined...

Of course they have. But the defections do not account for anything close to the majority of the military, even if one excludes Gadhafi's two sons' battalions. Quite frankly, that's disturbing and it indicates that things are not as clear-cut as had initially been portrayed.

6.) It would be nice to have some adult leadership in the US and UN right now. This is exactly what the UN was designed to mediate. They have near zero credibility right now.

World organization, be it the UN or previously the League of Nations, is ineffectual when it comes to major international peace, security, or humanitarian issues. The interests of the member states are too divergent to promote an effective, cohesive, and decisive response. What happened in Rwanda, Darfur, and now Libya, are the norm, not the exception. Security rests far more on the balance of power than it does the UN. Humanitarian crises are much more effectively dealt with at the NGO level than the UN.

In terms of mediation, the UN could play such a role. But even if the UN offered to mediate negotiations between the anti-Gadhafi groups and the Gadhafi dictatorship, it is far from clear whether either party would participate, much less compromise to reach a mutually agreed outcome. Early on, the dictatorship claimed it was willing to negotiate (its "red lines" or maximum it would concede not known). Now the on-the-ground situation has shifted. Sensing battlefield momentum, the Gadhafi dictatorship may no longer be willing to negotiate. Power matters. The on-the-ground situation matters.

7.) ...You and I seem to have a different understanding of “heroic courage”.

IMO, the anti-Gadhafi forces who fought to their death in Zawiya were every bit as heroic as those who fought and died at the Alamo, or in any other military engagement (large or small). They gave it everything they had, even as they knew that they were outgunned and cut off from any hope of being supplied by additional personnel or weapons. That they lost diminishes neither the courage nor heroism they displayed during their vain attempt to hold the city.

 

[apdst]

A number of thoughts:

1. The revolution will need to be waged by Libyans.

2. U.S. interests are not sufficiently critical to warrant direct military intervention. Arms assistance or perhaps participation in a no fly zone might could be constructive. However, strategic bombing, assaination, or other direct military intervention should not be pursued. The U.S. should follow a policy consistent with its interests. It should not repeat blunders that resulted from non-interest connected military intervention e.g., in Somalia in the early 1990s.

3. The Arab states have sufficient interests at stake to intervene militarily. That the Arab League has made a hollow gesture, agreeing to a no fly zone but choosing not to use any of its air assets to enforce its declaration, speaks volumes. In contrast, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a subset of Arab League members, committed military units to aid Bahrain's government. That the Arab League won't run any risks in Libya when they have larger interests in the outcome than the U.S./most NATO members should provide pause to states that have far fewer interests at stake e.g., the U.S.

4. Unpopular as it might be to suggest it, recent events have suggested that the anti-Gadhafi revolution does not enjoy broad-based support. Previously, I had assumed that the uprising was a broad-based popular one. It is not. The dictator commands a significant amount of support and the magnitude of that support is sufficiently great that it almost certainly cannot completely be explained by fear/coercion/disinformation.

5. Even more unpopular to suggest, the lack of broad-based support for the anti-Gadhafi revolution may well be a more important factor than the dictatorship's use of air power in determining the outcome of the conflict. In other words, had the revolution truly enjoyed broad-based popular support, military defections, including among its air force, would have been sufficiently large to bring those units and assets against the dictatorship. Then, the balance of power would have meant that the dictatorship was doomed. That didn't happen.

6. The lack of broad-based popular support means that the risk of violence that would arise in the power vacuum that would follow the collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship would be especially high. There would be competition, very likely violent, as various factions exploit the power vacuum and compete for influence/control.

7. To date, the opposition has demonstrated surprisingly poor organizational and military skill, even as some fighters e.g., in Zawiya, have demonstrated heroic courage. To date, not a single senior opposition leader has even spoken before the UN Security Council when, in theory, that forum would give them the largest global audience to make their case. Furthermore, there has been ample time during which such an address should have been given. That major oversight says much about the opposition's leadership capabilities. Given that situation and the lack of broad-based popular support, there would be a real danger that the opposition would not be able to form a broadly-supported transitional government in time to avert the consequences of the power vacuum that would result from the dictator's fall.

In sum, while I hope that the Gadhafi regime is toppled, I strongly believe that the outcome should be driven by the Libyans. Given the lack of critical U.S. interests at stake, I do not believe the U.S. should engage in direct military intervention. Moreover, the Arab League's hollow no fly zone declaration, makes the argument even stronger that the U.S. should not shoulder the risks and sacrifices that the Arab League refuses to bear to support its much greater interests.

You just contradicted yourself. There's no way to create a no-fly zone, without firing off a few rounds and blowing some **** up.

 

[donsutherland1]

There is no contradiction whatsoever. A no fly zone is not contradictory with a position that the U.S. should not engage in strategic bombing, assassination, or other direct military intervention.

There is a stark difference defensive preemptive tactics e.g., taking out radar installations, missile batteries, etc., to safeguard enforcement of a no fly zone, and offensive strategic air strikes aimed at shifting the battlefield balance of power. If a no fly zone is pursued, and my preference is for shipments of weapons to be furnished to the anti-Gadhafi forces, it is elementary that some preemptive defensive measures to allow for enforcement would be needed. I do not believe the U.S. should cross the line and take offensive measures, be they knocking out armored columns or targeting the Gadhafis. Those are things the Libyan people must do.

 

[Wiseone]

What is the point of a no flying zone since it obviously won't be enough to stop the Libyan military? All their tanks, armored cars, fighting vehicles, artillery, etc doesn't have to fly and its more than enough for them to win. The problem with "going in" even with just a no fly zone is how to do you "get out" and how much further do you go in? The purpose of the no fly zone is to assist the rebels obviously, however that won't be enough for the reasons I just said. So what do you do with your no fly zone after Gaddafi wins? Keep it in place to preserve some image you aren't backing down or that you are doing something? To keep Gaddafi down? He's got no ambition to expand outside of Libya and once the fighting is over there's also no reason to fly. To marginally reduce his combat strength? For what purpose?

So you've put in a no fly zone and the rebels are still losing, what does everyone call for next? Intervention of course, the rebels need more assistance, lets call for an international peace keeping force to occupy part of the country, maybe try and separate the two sides so they can talk because it worked so well in Yugoslavia. But lets say the force actually takes out Gaddafi...

So you've taken out Gaddafi and the rebellion is falling apart, everyone was united because they hated Gaddaffi but no one could agree on much else and he's dead. Some people want a democratic government, some people want a communist one, some people want an Islamic state, and many more people want different versions of all of these, and then there's those who just want to replace Gaddafi in a power grab.
Now Libya is in another civil war, refugees are everywhere, Europe is pissed (probably at the US since we'll led this effort) because of all the refugees coming to Europe from Libya. There's more genocide going on no one knows who the "good guys" are anymore and the "good guys" we've allied with, whoever they end up being, are just as bad as the people they are fighting.

So in the end what do you gain? A ****ing mess.
What did you lose? Access to oil, regional stability(at least in comparison), and you've probably pissed off a lot of countries, European and Arab, because being the finicky bastards they are won't approve of any job we do. AND A lot of money spent on these operations

 

[Grant]

The US is, as usual, in a no win situation

There were parades and protests against the Americans in Iraq, they will call Libya a 'quagmire', the US imperialistic, paternalistic, the 'policeman of the world', fret about an 'exit strategy',and so on.

I don't know whether this non-involvement of the US is Obama's decision or he is just dithering, but sooner or later the rest of the world has to get involved in the policing process. The UN, of course, is a corrupt waste of time and money and should be dismantled. The Democracies alone should form an organization and then decide on how they can assist in these situations. Meanwhile the Libyan people will suffer and die and many of the democracies will continue their programs of appeasement.

 

[Ron Mars]

IMO, it will have to be waged and won by Libyans. As noted previously, I do favor arms deliveries to the revolutionaries and could support a no fly zone. I do not support direct military intervention.

Dropping beans and bullets isn’t going to work. Neither will a NFZ. They are half measures when decisive action is required to stop Gaddafi.

Even if interests were not relevant, the U.S. lacks the manpower and resources to do so on such a scale. Much more needs to be involved to trigger such direct military support.

Two carriers in a few days will destroy Gaddafi’s ability to conduct offensive operations. The US has helped other nations under similar situations. Why not the Libyans?

Apparently, aside from expressing moral support, the Arab League does not believe the situation warrants their military intervention

Relying on them to do something decisive is wasted time.

What you're describing is exactly what now appears to be a more narrowly-supported revolution, almost but not quite an East-West schism.

Do you really find it surprising the Libyans in Gaddafi controlled areas are not rising up or protesting in the streets? They saw what happened to the last people who tried that.

Of course they have. But the defections do not account for anything close to the majority of the military, even if one excludes Gadhafi's two sons' battalions. Quite frankly, that's disturbing and it indicates that things are not as clear-cut as had initially been portrayed.

I agree the exact percentage of defecting military is impossible to determine right now. IMO if the US or others would act decisively the defections would drastically increase. Right now it looks like Gaddafi will win so there is no reason to defect. There have been more than a few reports of Libyan soldiers refusing to fire on civilians. Is that true? Gaddafi is importing mercenaries for a reason. This may be that reason.

World organization, be it the UN or previously the League of Nations, is ineffectual when it comes to major international peace, security, or humanitarian issues.

The UN is dithering today on many issues like Libya. It hasn’t always been that way. The world is in desperate need of a legitimate organization like the UN used to be.

 

[donsutherland1]

What is the point of a no flying zone since it obviously won't be enough to stop the Libyan military?

I suspect shipping arms to the anti-Gadhafi forces might be more effective. As it has become clearer in recent days that the revoluton was not broad-based, I believe that shortcoming might actually be a more important factor than the dictatorship's use of air power in determining the outcome of the conflict. Given the risks involved, and a lack of a broad-based revolution indicates that risks of renewed violence even after the dictatorship were toppled would be very high, and lack of compelling U.S. interests, I don't believe the U.S. should get involved in offensive military action. That the Arab League, with far greater interests refuses to supply even the most minimal military assets to enforcing its no fly zone declaration, is revealing. The U.S. should not run risks that are disproportionate to its interests, simply to add substance to what is currently nothing more than rhetoric on the part of the Arab League.

 

[Ron Mars]

There is no contradiction whatsoever. A no fly zone is not contradictory with a position that the U.S. should not engage in strategic bombing, assassination, or other direct military intervention.

You have made some good points Don but IMO adpst is right here.

NFZ aircraft will be fired upon. They must defend themselves right. That will require sending in planes (wild weasels) armed with missiles to strike Libyan SAM and AAA sites. They may also be engaged by mobile air defense weapons (SAMs and AAA) fired from infantry formations and they will have to be attacked.

A NFZ is a half measure that will not stop Gaddafi. We will end up destroying his air defense, the one set of weapons not being used against the rebels.

 

[donsutherland1]

Dropping beans and bullets isn’t going to work. Neither will a NFZ. They are half measures when decisive action is required to stop Gaddafi.

Two carriers in a few days will destroy Gaddafi’s ability to conduct offensive operations. The US has helped other nations under similar situations. Why not the Libyans?

That might well be the case. The easier part, at least for the U.S., would be driving the Gadhafi regime from power. The far more difficult part would be what follows next. The resulting post-Gadhafi power vacuum would be dangerous. Given what has clearly emerged as a lack of broad-based support for the revolution (it's largely an East-West schism, with many southern areas also committed to the dictator), aspirations for more representative government could quickly disintegrate in renewed violence. The tribal differences are great. Animosities still simmer beneath the surface. A not insignificant share of the population has benefited greatly from the Gadhafi regime. Reprisals and counterreprisals would very likely follow the collapse of the dictatorship, quite possibly well before any sufficiently representative transitional government could be organized.

Had the U.S. demonstrated a proactive military strategy that rapidily snuffed out incipient and highly probable insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, developments that should have been expected given the historic experience of both countries, the post-Gadhafi risks might be lower. But in both cases, the U.S. was caught flat-footed, fell behind events, etc. Toppling the Gadhafi regime only to see the country erupt in a multi-faceted civil war would not be beneficial with or without a U.S. military presence in Libya. It might actually be worse than the presently bad status quo if the instability spilled over into Tunisia and Egypt, both of which are more politically fragile than usual in the wake of major political revolutions that are still underway there.

Finally, promises by various elements of democracy are not assured to work out. Indeed, those very same pledges were made in Somalia following the toppling of the Barre dictatorship. The January 29, 1991 edition of The New York Times reported:

A spokesman for the Somali Congress in Nairobi, Ali Mohammed Hirabe, said the group was preparing to form a “broad-based democratic government.” Other opposition forces would be invited to join, he said.

Months later, the country was gripped by anarchy and violence. To this date, the country lacks a central government.

In the end, while I hope that the anti-Gadhafi forces can prevail (my concerns about their lack of broad popular support notwithstanding), that's a war they will need to win. Unless some development dramatically raised the U.S. stake in the outcome, I don't believe the U.S. should wage their war for them.

 

[Wiseone]

Lets look at a parallel to Libya in terms of civil war, rebellion and lives lost, IRAQ. In Iraq while Saddam was fighting a civil war with the Kurds in the mid 90s after Desert Storm, we had a NO FLY ZONE imposed over Iraq, it was designed in part to assist the rebels. It didn't work, only slowed Saddam's advance and before, during, and after the civil war he killed thousands and thousands of Iraqis. When the US invaded in 2003 was it a popular move? In some parts of the world yes. But after a few years? ****ing political and diplomatic disaster.

How are Gaddafi and Saddam similar?
Civil war? Yes.
Possible WMD threat? More with Iraq but there's a tinkle about in Libya
Brutal dictator willing to kill thousands to hang onto power? Yes.
Does everyone know he's an ass? Yes.
Everyone agree he's a murderer and crazy? Yes.
Everyone in support of no fly zone? Yes on Iraq and just about yes on Libya.
Everyone agree he should be gone? Yes.
No fly zone in place? Yes on Iraq, no on Libya

The two are similar in so many ways, and people will call for intervention in Libya with the same cheer they did for Iraq. "We'll be greeted as liberators!!" and in Iraq we were for a short while, but people got impatient, their standard of living dropped due to such a serious change in government, there was no police and not enough Soldiers to keep law and order, millitas formed for protection and to advance different opinions on gov't, through violence if necessary. There's no reason to believe Libya will be any different, and since direct intervention will just be a cluster-**** not to mention A FIFTH theater of war/deployment for the US, behind the US itself, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Korea, there's no reason to go in. What could we send on rapid notice? A brigade maybe? That cannot occupy Libya, and no ally is going to send enough troops to make up the difference.

Are we really going to suggest a massive redeployment of global assets, some already in war theaters, just to create another Iraq? All for what? To attempt to install a democratic government in Libya when we aren't even sure that's what most people are going to want there? Because again all they are united about now is the fact they hate Qaddafi, most people haven't given serious thought as to what kind of government they would want.